Mafiascum.net

↑ Dannflor wrote:Why am I so "on"? What do you mean by that? (Yeah I realize I just set myself up for a joke but whatev)

Not going to make the joke, too obvious.
I meant that 41 seemed really in the game.

↑ Dannflor wrote:

↑ q21 wrote:As for what I'm talking about in the quoted: Dannflor wants everyone to give their opinions in the RVS stage. Opinions in the RVS stage are inherent based on nothing of substance so I wondered why he's so interested in getting such opinions from everyone.

Because it can help get the game out of RVS... I've said this before.

I saw your response the first time, and was willing to accept it - its neither a great answer (I don't think there was one available) but not a terrible one (of which there were plenty). This post wasn't addressed to you, and I'm currently reading the comment that prompted the question as null.

↑ Elleran wrote:I disagree. Excuse might carry more of a negative connotation but it's more honest. Reason is overused replacement word for excuse.

Town also uses excuse often. I also disagree on this. If town wants to accuse someone, they still have to reinforce their accusation with strong evidence or at least some sort of a lead. So it'll be similar to: "I accuse XXX because of YYY." Saying: "I accuse XXX" and leaving it hanging will lead to counter-accusations and loss of credibility. You can call it 'excuse" or 'reason', it doesn't matter to me. They are both trying to support an argument.

Reasons are valid and hold up to scrutiny. Town should have reasons for their votes (maybe not so important this early, but certainly going into a lynch and further days beyond). Scum have to knowingly lynch town, an action that they must excuse. Provided the town doesn't play too terribly these excuses need to be fabricated and as the game goes on this fabrication can get the scum caught, hence scumhunting.

Going into the game with the mentality of having to excuse your actions is one I find scummy. It may simply be a case of ascribing different meaning to the same word, or it could be indicative of something more sinister. I am happy with where my vote sits pending particiaption or lack thereof from joels.

Holy fuck, I missed Mathia. And the fun part of RVS. Dammit.

q21 is probably town despite his lacking in numerical value. Out of all the posters he had the most 'natural' transition from RVS to normal. His easily-letting-go of Mathia (RIP) contributed to this.

goodmorning seems towny.

Elleran, I honestly think we're out of RVS. This is the stage where people vote based on the slightest indication of mild-scumminess, but not RVS.

Joel's post felt bad, but I'm giving the dude a break since I've been in that position quite recently, and I think people scumread me for it.

Dis dude(tte), dis dude(tte): VOTE: Jennifer
I have a valid reason/excuse (Haha) for voting them, but I want to try something: What is the reason/excuse I'm thinking of!? Mind-Boggling.

GoodMorning; Do you like playing town? Do you like playing scum? which is your favourite? why?

RQS, you bastard. (See what I did there?)

↑ Rondar wrote:I have a valid reason/excuse (Haha) for voting them, but I want to try something: What is the reason/excuse I'm thinking of!? Mind-Boggling

Are you wanting us to guess? If so I might say you're trying to do a bit of a reaction test and see what people will say.

Also, in that post you gave your read on almost everyone who posted but me... Why? I realize this is still RVS/early stages, but you mentioned everyone else.

I just jotted down my thoughts from reading. Reading your posts I didn't get anything. Completely null. Didn't feel the need to bother outing it. Hadn't even realized I said something about everyone (except you).

Also, yeah, I guess you could call it a reaction test, I'll rephrase it: What do you think I think was scummy about Jen's post?

I just jotted down my thoughts from reading. Reading your posts I didn't get anything. Completely null. Didn't feel the need to bother outing it. Hadn't even realized I said something about everyone (except you).

Fair enough.

↑ Jennifer wrote:@Elleran
What do you mean by that?

I'm staying on Elleran for now, but I would also support a Joel wagon for stating his policy is to just go after lurkers. Seems like preferred strategy for scum if allowed to get away with it, as they don't have to risk slipping by participating in the actual goings on and being on record expressing an opinion for/against different trains based on substance.

Also, I don't consider us in RVS anymore.

This post? I can't see anything particularly scummy about it. The "I don't consider us in RVS anymore" sticks out a little bit, be nice for her to elaborate why. Mainly because most of the speculation has been based on RVS, we haven't really had anything to push us out of it. Still, I don't find anything especially scummy about Jenn. However, it is still way too early to tell anything. More people need to post.

I feel like in most of the games I've been in, I've caused the most RVS to end. Unfortunately, I've gotten myself initially targeted by doing so.

Yes, we're still in RVS. However, we're beginning to latch onto more concrete (or less abstract) evidence of scumminess.

If my opinion of "excuse" vs "reason" came off as suspicious or strange to you, then so be it. I suppose you can say that reason is the excuse for acting on a scumtell (or vice versa: excuse is the reason for acting on a scumtell), but it really comes down to whether that evidence is concrete or not. Yes, excuse implies a desire to take back a wrongdoing, but reason is also an neutral, politically correct way of saying it. Personally, it doesn't matter so much. I'll probably end up saying both words interchangeably.

New rule: no one is allowed to use the term "RVS" after this post. If you make a random vote, you can be judged on having made a random vote within the context of the gamestate when that vote was made. If you make a serious vote, you can be judged on having made a serious vote within the context of the gamestate when that vote was made. Trying to neatly divide the game into chunks and phases that it can't actually be divided into is already turning into a massive distraction. Capische? Ribbit.



Rondar stole my thunder of making the super awesome and serious Jennifer vote first, but I guess we can't all be trend-setters.

↑ Slandaar wrote:GoodMorning; Do you like playing town? Do you like playing scum? which is your favourite? why?

I like playing, full-stop.
I most prefer plain VT, it's the mystery factor I think. All the figuring out who to trust and the politics of the lynches. Better to have logic than strategy. And not to have a PR to ruin.

@Rondar: Eh, setting up multiple candidates? I got nothing.

↑ DeathRowKitty wrote:Rondar stole my thunder of making the super awesome and serious Jennifer vote first, but I guess we can't all be trend-setters.
Unvote: TheTrollie
Vote: Jennifer

Why is Jenn scummy? Is there a reason for voting her other than to sheep Rondar?

Wait, what? I totally missed post 59 and none of this makes sense.

Would someone care to enlighten a humble peon as to

↑ Dannflor wrote:Is there a reason for voting her other than to sheep Rondar?

Yes. Because she's scum. Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

In Post 59 DRK asked everyone to stop calling this RVS and switched his vote to Jenn for no said reason. How exactly are you confused?

PEDIT: DRK, it wasn't a stupid question. Let me put it this way... Why is she scum?

Jennifer is scum for this post. Any other questions?

I'm sorry babe, I'm just being intentionally obtuse, but you sound so rude all the time. Lighten up, dammit.

Am I the only one who doesn't see what's scummy about her posts?

I'm sorry babe, I'm just being intentionally obtuse, but you sound so rude all the time. Lighten up, dammit.

You talking to me or goodmorning?

DeathRowKitty concerns me. Post 66, 65 and 59 are all weird.

Why be so serious about removing the RVS, then tell someone to "lighten up"? It's odd. Please explain.

I don't know, do I seem dark or heavy? I thought I was just jolly.

(Also, "lighten up, dammit" is a reference to someone's signature.)

Actually, I see what Mr.Frog is talking about in the past that Jenn wrote. Jenn was shown a short evidence about Dannflor's suspicion on myself and Jenn responded by simply saying "Fair enough" then changing her vote on to me.

I disagree with Mr.Frog's quick change of votes, though. He made up his mind about Jenn on one of Jenn's earliest post in this thread. I smell scumminess from her post as well, but not nearly strong enough to be worth changing my vote to.

On the other hand, the fact that Mr.Frog changed his position so quickly so confidently concerns me. Please explain your evaluation of the post you linked? If it's nothing beyond what I'm getting from it, your reaction was too much.

DRK, why did you change votes so quickly?

are you a male or a female, DRK? I had been assuming that you're a guy, but your name has Kitty in it and it made me second guess myself.

↑ Dannflor wrote:The "I don't consider us in RVS anymore" sticks out a little bit, be nice for her to elaborate why.

My view of RVS is that it's short-lived and only exists when we don't have information to know where to start, so we have to start somewhere and jump in. By now if someone new came in, enough has happened that they do have information to analyze and move with.

↑ Elleran wrote:Actually, I do see what Mr.Frog is talking about in the past that Jenn wrote. Jenn was shown a short evidence about Dannflor's suspicion on myself and Jenn responded by simply saying "Fair enough" then changing her vote on to me.

My guess is that he more likely takes offense to my saying "No, we're hunting scum."